Lord Judd: My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, a long-standing friend. As we have heard, she brings a great deal of useful experience to our deliberations on the Bill. Like all noble Lords who have spoken so far, I gladly welcome the thrust of the Bill and the tone of my noble friend's helpful observations when introducing it. Stability is critically necessary.
	When it comes to social provision and answering social need, a spirit of love and mutual service is vital. Deprivation among children, with all its resulting unfulfilled potential or anti-social consequences, is not limited to any one social quarter. Many children of highly successful players in our market-dominated system are short of little in material terms, but they are worryingly deprived of firm, unsentimental love, affection and emotional security. If we are serious in our commitment to children, we have to look hard at the prevailing values of society, or indeed the lack of them. No amount of social provision will ensure a decent and healthy society if it arises in a prevailing context of greed and insensitive egocentric materialism. The social provision for which we argue should be a reflection of our personal and general social ethos. Without that, inevitably, it will in reality too often be about treating symptoms rather than dealing with the roots of the social disease.
	As has been said, we are fortunate in the UK to have a wide cross-section of voluntary non-governmental agencies as well as organisations representing many dedicated qualified professionals in the realm of social care, which between them have a huge amount of front-line experience of work with children. In addition to the relevant professional associations, we are fortunate to have bodies such as—I give them only as examples—the National Children's Bureau, the Children's Services Development Group, the Children's Society, the Children's Rights Alliance, the Refugee Children's Consortium, the Save the Children Fund and others. The Government and the House would do well to listen carefully to them and respond to their concerns as deliberations on the legislation move forward. I have found their briefings very valuable and hope that I can do justice to the material provided. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, put it so well in her very positive speech, well-motivated care and social workers are a key to success.
	A lot is said in the Bill about local authorities. Is there not room to spell out a specific duty for them to secure sufficient and diverse accommodation to provide for the different needs of different looked-after children and young people? Could there not be specific reference to the importance, wherever appropriate, of keeping siblings together and ensuring access to siblings? Is it not vital that local authority visits to the looked-after should always be by a specialist children and families social worker? And is this not particularly important for children in custody? More generally on visiting, should not the importance of achieving the stability of an identifiable, named relationship and accountability for any individual child over a substantial period be more firmly recognised as indispensable? Would this not facilitate the development of specialisms covering, for example, the disabled? The Children's Rights Alliance believes that there is a fundamental flaw in the design of the proposed extended role for independent reviewing officers and that they should be required to be independent of the local authority concerned. What is the Government's position on that observation?
	Partnership clearly has a lot of potential. Does my noble friend agree that where pilots are to be organised, they should be across a wide cross-section of local authorities and should run for long enough to allow a convincing evaluation? In the light of the recent judicial ruling by the House of Lords on what is a public authority, is it not essential specifically to stipulate that in all individual contact with partners, the requirements of human rights law are fully implemented by each of them? Do the new safeguards spelled out in the Bill not make it all the more important to consider the extension of looked-after status to disabled children who are away from home and most certainly to children in custody?
	Is it not time to lay down the principle that children should never be in custody in prison or detention centres? As soon as sweet reasonableness suggests that use of the word "never" would be unwise, because there can always be special circumstances, the processes of institutionalised rationalisation will inevitably get to work on finding reasons why such special circumstances apply. Prison and detention centres are no place for children. They can accentuate trauma and do lasting damage. There is a need for specialist accommodation for them and for families. I know that the Government are working on it, but surely that needs most urgently to become the rule.
	Is it not always essential that the youth justice and social care systems work closely together, especially for those in custody? Is that not vital for successful rehabilitation? Significantly, between 40 per cent and 49 per cent of children and young people in custody have at some time been in local authority care, and 18 per cent are still subject to care orders. I simply do not understand why local authorities cannot be made responsible for the quality of the education provided for those in custody.
	On the wider question of education, although the idea that a designated member of staff in schools should be responsible for developing the educational achievement of looked-after children is interesting, surely the staff as a whole should feel a shared special responsibility. It is important, anyway, to carefully ensure that the way in which any such development is implemented does not stigmatise the children concerned.
	As has been said, the physical and mental health problems of looked-after children are a major concern. It is estimated that 45 per cent of such children aged between five and 17 have at least one mental health disorder, compared with 10 per cent in the general population. There are disturbingly high levels of self harm, particularly in secure accommodation, and higher levels of drug misuse and smoking. Those realities are aggravated for those who encounter discrimination. Ethnic minorities and the disabled are examples. Should the Bill not more explicitly tackle guidance on healthcare provision to healthcare bodies?
	In her characteristically well-informed and highly relevant remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, dealt with immigration. Some 3,000 children a year come to the UK to seek asylum. The trauma which they have already suffered and the continuing trauma of insecurity and uncertainty are hard to overestimate. The lasting damage to mental and physical health can be serious. The danger of alienation should be taken far more seriously than it is in our proper concerns about security and anxieties about extremism. In some people, a bad or humiliating experience in the formative years can light the fuse of grotesquely irrational behaviour later. In politics, irrespective of where we stand, should we not always remember that in all our vocabulary and actions? To say that we are concerned to win hearts and minds but to fail to follow that through in deeds, where it matters, is highly provocative.
	Children are children and young people are young people, and whatever their status, circumstances or origins, they must be treated primarily as such. Their vulnerability is a constant challenge. Being a migrant does not eliminate childhood or reduce its significance; quite the reverse. If we are to be a decent society, we must always remember that, whatever the pressures, complexities or exasperations.
	First and foremost, we must look to the interests of the child. It is no exaggeration to say that when the Joint Committee on Human Rights was looking at the administration of asylum—I was a member at the time—we were deeply troubled by what we saw happening to children. Too often, they were seen just as part of an immigration problem and not as children in need. The UK Borders Act places a duty on Border and Immigration Authority staff to safeguard children, but it fails to establish the more important duty required of other agencies under the Children Act 2004 to actively promote a child's welfare. Does my noble friend not agree that this should urgently be addressed? Could the Bill not provide for a system of formal guardianship to help a child through the migration and asylum process?
	The Government have indicated their intention to pilot projects allowing looked-after young people to remain with their foster carers up to the age of 21, but the Government have also argued that it might be more appropriate to place asylum-seeking children in more independent living arrangements at the age of 16. How come? Surely what makes the first proposition important applies at least as much to asylum-seeking children. Can my noble friend clarify that? Sadly, the second proposition appears to have more to do with preparing the child for removal than with meeting the young person's needs as a young person. Similarly, Clause 9 is intended to ensure that the looked-after child has accommodation near school, yet the Government are also considering placing asylum-seeking children with specialist authorities. What if such an authority is not near the school in which the asylum seeker is already placed? Clarification on this would be helpful.
	Let us take the welcome opportunity of this excellently intentioned Bill to demonstrate our inclusive commitment to children—not to some children, as the Prime Minister put it so powerfully in the summer, but to all children. All new policies and law covering children should apply with equal significance to those who seek refugee status or asylum as they do to any other children. I hope that my noble friend can reassure the House.